Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH
Mehrun Bi Since Deceased Rep. By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Atharulla @ Nawab Jan, Since Deceased Rep. By Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2014 in O.S.No.2790/2003 on the file of the XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs had filed suit in O.S.No.108/1996 before the Court of Munsiff and JMFC at Anekal and thereafter, the said suit was withdrawn and made over to City Civil Court, Bengaluru and accordingly, re-numbered as O.S.No.2790/2003.
4. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal are that, the father of the plaintiffs - Syed Azim Saheb had four daughters and three sons. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the children of Syed Azim Saheb. The second daughter died. The parents of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 died intestate. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 died and his legal heirs were brought on record. Defendant No.4 got impleaded in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are governed by the Shariat Law. The grievance of the
A gift under Mohammedan Law is valid without registration if accompanied by declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession.
The court established that an oral gift requires clear proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession to be valid, which was not met in this case.
A gift under Mohammedan law requires explicit acceptance and possession; failure to prove these elements results in denial of ownership claims.
The Court affirmed that the Kazi position does not confer hereditary property rights, emphasizing shared ancestral ownership over property despite claims for exclusive rights.
Point of Law : Gift of an undivided share (mushaa) in property which is capable of division is irregular (fasid), but not void (batil).
The validity of a registered gift deed does not require consideration, as long as possession is delivered, confirming property rights to the donee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and proof of oral Hiba under Mohammedan Law, and the requirement to establish possession and acceptance of a gift in property disputes....
A gift under Muslim Law requires a valid declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession; gifts of undivided property can be valid if established correctly, confirmed through evidence.
Unregistered gift deeds under Mohammedan law do not require registration to be valid, affirming that both oral and written gifts are effective without registration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
